Men's Rights Activists

[Sanae Kochiya]

I'm not doubting what you're saying, but unless you've browsed TheRedPill, you don't know. Kiwi threads don't cut it. We focus on the few lolcows in a sea of unfunny people.

Yeah, no. They're just a bunch of very butthurt virgins.

 

[BT 075]

Yeah, no. They're just a bunch of very butthurt virgins.

The red pill people are, yes. Every single one of them.

With the MRA's you have different groups. There is a small group of them who are divorced fathers who lost their children, or who had to pay their spouse a shit ton of money after they parted ways. They have negative experiences with the court, cheating spouses, paternity fraud, and I legitimately understand that and sympathize because there are spouses who will abuse the law to screw you over.

The thing is, these men are the minority. The older men who actually lived live, who actually had long-lasting relationships with women that went wrong, who were dealt an unfair hand in life and who are (often rightfully) bitter about it. The majority of red pillers and MRAs are young men who point at the stories of these older men, and say: "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men! Clearly they must all hate men!"

They then use the stories of the unlucky few to prove a point of how all women are evil, of how all feminists are out to get you. But just because some men are screwed over by their wives in court, does that mean those wives are feminists? Does that mean those courts are infiltrated by feminists? And the most important question: why do these red pillers worry so much about the ways in which a woman might potentially hurt them, when none of them will ever have a woman in the first place?

The Men's Right Activism movement is a crowd of angry, spiteful virgins and romantically unsuccessful young men, who have hijacked a small movement of husbands and fathers who got screwed over by their wives and use their example as a way to justify their intense hatred for women. If MRAs wanted to be taken seriously, I suggest they kick out any faggot who uses the word "redpilled" unironically.

 

[Ariel]

The red pill people are, yes. Every single one of them.

With the MRA's you have different groups. There is a small group of them who are divorced fathers who lost their children, or who had to pay their spouse a shit ton of money after they parted ways. They have negative experiences with the court, cheating spouses, paternity fraud, and I legitimately understand that and sympathize because there are spouses who will abuse the law to screw you over.

The thing is, these men are the minority. The older men who actually lived live, who actually had long-lasting relationships with women that went wrong, who were dealt an unfair hand in life and who are (often rightfully) bitter about it. The majority of red pillers and MRAs are young men who point at the stories of these older men, and say: "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men! Clearly they must all hate men!"

They then use the stories of the unlucky few to prove a point of how all women are evil, of how all feminists are out to get you. But just because some men are screwed over by their wives in court, does that mean those wives are feminists? Does that mean those courts are infiltrated by feminists? And the most important question: why do these red pillers worry so much about the ways in which a woman might potentially hurt them, when none of them will ever have a woman in the first place?

The Men's Right Activism movement is a crowd of angry, spiteful virgins and romantically unsuccessful young men, who have hijacked a small movement of husbands and fathers who got screwed over by their wives and use their example as a way to justify their intense hatred for women. If MRAs wanted to be taken seriously, I suggest they kick out any faggot who uses the word "redpilled" unironically.

I'm fairly sure most feminists (not the attention seeking twitter kind) would actually side with what the real MRAs are after. Men losing custody of their children because they are not seen to be primary carers is a real thing.

 

[PeteyCoffee]

Of course we've browsed it, that's how you find content on it. It's been brought up in various thread, and @Cosmos recently made a general thread entirely for it.

Looking at the front page of it, we have some gems such as, "Women are an amalgamation of popular culture: or why they offer nothing of value aside from their pussies." "A Look into the blue pill world of Elliot Rogders." And "Women are mislead by society, just like blue pill beta bob."

Seriously, r/theredpill isn't the kind of place you want to defend.

Is it sexist to say that societial expectations screw with women, or that Elliot Rogers was obsessed with the notion that he had to have a girlfriend and that was a part of his insanity? That third post was sexist, but if you read the comments, most of the red pillers thought the same thing and criticized the OP.

The red pill people are, yes. Every single one of them.

With the MRA's you have different groups. There is a small group of them who are divorced fathers who lost their children, or who had to pay their spouse a shit ton of money after they parted ways. They have negative experiences with the court, cheating spouses, paternity fraud, and I legitimately understand that and sympathize because there are spouses who will abuse the law to screw you over.

The thing is, these men are the minority. The older men who actually lived live, who actually had long-lasting relationships with women that went wrong, who were dealt an unfair hand in life and who are (often rightfully) bitter about it. The majority of red pillers and MRAs are young men who point at the stories of these older men, and say: "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men! Clearly they must all hate men!"

They then use the stories of the unlucky few to prove a point of how all women are evil, of how all feminists are out to get you. But just because some men are screwed over by their wives in court, does that mean those wives are feminists? Does that mean those courts are infiltrated by feminists? And the most important question: why do these red pillers worry so much about the ways in which a woman might potentially hurt them, when none of them will ever have a woman in the first place?

The Men's Right Activism movement is a crowd of angry, spiteful virgins and romantically unsuccessful young men, who have hijacked a small movement of husbands and fathers who got screwed over by their wives and use their example as a way to justify their intense hatred for women. If MRAs wanted to be taken seriously, I suggest they kick out any faggot who uses the word "redpilled" unironically.

If Feminism supports government policies which advantage women at the expense of men, it is working against men.

Red Pillers might say, "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men!", and then point to real cases in which Feminist supported laws screwed over some men. You claim this somehow invalidates their concerns and makes them dumb losers? What about the blacks who complained about Jim Crow but werent lynched themselves?

Mainstream society is infiltrated by feminists. Is the media not an example enough? How almost anyone who even remotely says the wrong thing in the eyes of Feminists is character assassinated by all the major news sources and destroyed professionally. And how demonstrably shady and nasty individuals who also happen to be Feminists are painted universally by the media as paragons of virtue and heroes.

In America, you often can't criticize a woman without getting called a sexist, because a lot of people consider attacking one woman or one group of women or even the cultural norms of women the same thing as attacking all women. Evidently, mainstream Americans believe all women are the same. Feminism!

I have found zero evidence of 'rampant sexism by red pillers', therefore, I am led to believe this is what's happening here.

 

[Ariel]

It's sexist to say that societial expectations screw with women, or that Elliot Rogers was obsessed with the notion that he had to have a girlfriend and that was a part of his insanity? That third post was sexist, but if you read the comments, most of the red pillers thought the same thing and criticized the OP.

If Feminism supports government policies which advantage women at the expense of men, it is working against men.

Red Pillers might say, "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men!", and then point to real cases in which Feminist supported laws screwed over some men. You claim this somehow invalidates their concerns and makes them dumb losers? Then most of the blacks who said, "Look! Look how the white men are destroying colored people!", and then pointed to lynchings, must have had invalid concerns because they never suffered from a lynching themselves, and they must have been dumb losers too.

Mainstream society is infiltrated by feminists. Is the media not an example enough? How almost anyone who even remotely says the wrong thing in the eyes of Feminists is character assassinated by all the major news sources and destroyed professionally. And how demonstrably shady and nasty individuals who also happen to be Feminists are painted universally by the media as paragons of virtue and heroes.

In America, you often can't criticize a woman without getting called a sexist, because to a lot of people attacking one woman or one group of women or even the cultural norms of women is the same thing as attacking all women. Evidently, mainstream Americans believe all women are the same. Feminism!

I have found zero evidence of 'rampant sexism by red pillers', therefore, I am led to believe this is what's happening here.

 

[Sanae Kochiya]

*on phone*

Yes. Can I get a shipment of tinfoil hats? ... Yes, take a right at New Zealand. Kiwi Farms should be right there. Alright, thanks.

 

[Cosmos]

The red pill people are, yes. Every single one of them.

With the MRA's you have different groups. There is a small group of them who are divorced fathers who lost their children, or who had to pay their spouse a shit ton of money after they parted ways. They have negative experiences with the court, cheating spouses, paternity fraud, and I legitimately understand that and sympathize because there are spouses who will abuse the law to screw you over.

The thing is, these men are the minority. The older men who actually lived live, who actually had long-lasting relationships with women that went wrong, who were dealt an unfair hand in life and who are (often rightfully) bitter about it. The majority of red pillers and MRAs are young men who point at the stories of these older men, and say: "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men! Clearly they must all hate men!"

They then use the stories of the unlucky few to prove a point of how all women are evil, of how all feminists are out to get you. But just because some men are screwed over by their wives in court, does that mean those wives are feminists? Does that mean those courts are infiltrated by feminists? And the most important question: why do these red pillers worry so much about the ways in which a woman might potentially hurt them, when none of them will ever have a woman in the first place?

The Men's Right Activism movement is a crowd of angry, spiteful virgins and romantically unsuccessful young men, who have hijacked a small movement of husbands and fathers who got screwed over by their wives and use their example as a way to justify their intense hatred for women. If MRAs wanted to be taken seriously, I suggest they kick out any faggot who uses the word "redpilled" unironically.

All of this.

If MRAs want to be taken seriously, they really need to focus on the whole "gender inequality in family courts" thing, which I think most people can get behind. But acting like men are this oppressed minority while spitting about how all women are vindictive, shallow, stupid cunts who are out to destroy everything with a penis makes people (rightfully) mock MRAs as whiny manbabies.

 

[Emiya Kiwitsugu]

Is it sexist to say that societial expectations screw with women, or that Elliot Rogers was obsessed with the notion that he had to have a girlfriend and that was a part of his insanity? That third post was sexist, but if you read the comments, most of the red pillers thought the same thing and criticized the OP.

If Feminism supports government policies which advantage women at the expense of men, it is working against men.

Red Pillers might say, "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men!", and then point to real cases in which Feminist supported laws screwed over some men. You claim this somehow invalidates their concerns and makes them dumb losers? What about the blacks who complained about Jim Crow but werent lynched themselves?

Mainstream society is infiltrated by feminists. Is the media not an example enough? How almost anyone who even remotely says the wrong thing in the eyes of Feminists is character assassinated by all the major news sources and destroyed professionally. And how demonstrably shady and nasty individuals who also happen to be Feminists are painted universally by the media as paragons of virtue and heroes.

In America, you often can't criticize a woman without getting called a sexist, because a lot of people consider attacking one woman or one group of women or even the cultural norms of women the same thing as attacking all women. Evidently, mainstream Americans believe all women are the same. Feminism!

I have found zero evidence of 'rampant sexism by red pillers', therefore, I am led to believe this is what's happening here.

There's a reason no one takes MRAs seriously.

It's because of posts like this.

 

[chimpburgers]

Is it sexist to say that societial expectations screw with women, or that Elliot Rogers was obsessed with the notion that he had to have a girlfriend and that was a part of his insanity? That third post was sexist, but if you read the comments, most of the red pillers thought the same thing and criticized the OP.

If Feminism supports government policies which advantage women at the expense of men, it is working against men.

Red Pillers might say, "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men!", and then point to real cases in which Feminist supported laws screwed over some men. You claim this somehow invalidates their concerns and makes them dumb losers? What about the blacks who complained about Jim Crow but werent lynched themselves?

Mainstream society is infiltrated by feminists. Is the media not an example enough? How almost anyone who even remotely says the wrong thing in the eyes of Feminists is character assassinated by all the major news sources and destroyed professionally. And how demonstrably shady and nasty individuals who also happen to be Feminists are painted universally by the media as paragons of virtue and heroes.

In America, you often can't criticize a woman without getting called a sexist, because a lot of people consider attacking one woman or one group of women or even the cultural norms of women the same thing as attacking all women. Evidently, mainstream Americans believe all women are the same. Feminism!

I have found zero evidence of 'rampant sexism by red pillers', therefore, I am led to believe this is what's happening here.

Try defending Paul Elam and the loons at A Voice for Men. Are they not fucking out of their minds to you? How about Dean Esmay?

 

[PeteyCoffee]

There's a reason no one takes MRAs seriously.

It's because of posts like this.

I don't take MRAs seriously and it has nothing to do with that.

 

[Lovekindler]

former MRA here

Every MRA I have met (Including myself) has been either a loveshy, a angry butthurt Elliot Rodger wannabe (15 year old me), or if female, basically the actual stereotype of the girl who joins to get attention. I personally quit being a fedoralord because one, I actually started talking to women without being a sexual sleazebag, and two, I got a girlfriend despite being fat and under certain lights, ugly. I did find out that all I needed to do was just find a way to be happier, and happier I am. I look at MRA and loveshy sites and wonder if I did keep going, how would my life be now? Would I be featured on the Farms?

 

[Cosmos]

I took a gender studies class this semester (fortunately, it was actually very enjoyable and not obnoxious in the slightest) and I just remembered a really interesting excerpt I read. It's about how the MRA movement (although it's specifically called the "fathers' rights movement" here) is really shooting itself in the foot by being so hostile towards feminism as a whole. It's from a book called Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel.

If men have increased their family time, it’s not because they were marching to the beat of a male drum and bugle corps. Indeed, many men resisted for decades. It’s been women, and especially those working mothers inspired by feminist ideals of workplace equality, who have been imploring, cajoling, insisting, yelling, and otherwise pleading with them to do their share. The dual-career, dual-caregiver family form —the family form that is becoming the norm in American society—is, let’s be clear, a feminist invention. So it’s a bit ironic, and a lot disingenuous, for these same men who have stepped up and become more active fathers to now declare they are doing so in opposition to feminism. Theirs is the other half of gender equality in the public sphere, and this massive cultural transformation, this blending of the public and the private, is partly the result of a relentless campaign by feminist women.

Instead of thanking women—and especially those feminist-inspired working mothers—for enabling and insisting that we spend more time in our families, the fathers’ rights movement spends a lot of time attacking those same feminist women. They take their grief and confusion at the dissolution of their families and transform it into rage at their ex-wives, their ex-wives’ lawyers, family-court judges—and, of course, the feminist women who seem to inspire them all.

They are often right to be angry at the system, which can hurt them, but their rage at women feels misplaced. Instead of pretending that feminists are the enemy, these involved and engaged fathers should be allying themselves with feminist women in supporting egalitarian parenting after divorce as during the marriage and an equal and equitable split of family assets. We should assume that both ex-husband and ex-wife are fully capable of supporting themselves in the workplace, so that alimony could be used only to supplement the ex-wives’ income to compensate for the gender wage gap. We should also assume that both parents have been equally invested and equally responsible for their children’s welfare and, with some demonstrable evidence that such is the case, all other things being equal, that both parents should share custody, which is, after all, not about possessing property, but raising human beings.

Let me go a step further. What are the forces that have prevented men from becoming the fathers that they say they want to be? They are a combination of an unyielding workplace and an ideology of masculinity that promotes robotic stoicism over nurturing, competition over patience, aggression over justice. That is, it’s institutional inflexibility, giving guys the message that the “unencumbered worker” is really the best sort of worker (here they would find common cause with women who are also stymied by this). The set of attitudes and traits that is most closely associated with masculinity—robotic stoicism, competition, aggression—are those that contradict most with the qualities needed to be a good parent: patience, nurturing, emotional resilience. In that sense, men who seek to be really involved fathers have to choose between fatherhood and masculinity—at least in the traditional sense of masculinity. It’s a false choice, of course, and the groups that have launched the most persuasive critique of traditional notions of masculinity have been black men, gay men, and feminist women.

Fathers’ rights arguments actually do little to advance the cause of fathers; indeed, they detract from the movement’s credibility—and lead the movement of involved and injured dads right into the waiting arms of the men’s rights movement—rather than into a more credible alliance with those men of color who are promoting fathers’ responsibility; gay men, who seek to become and are proving to be quite adept at fatherhood themselves; and feminist women.

I mean, I think he raises a lot of very good points.

 

[Vitriol]

I took a gender studies class this semester (fortunately, it was actually very enjoyable and not obnoxious in the slightest) and I just remembered a really interesting excerpt I read. It's about how the MRA movement (although it's specifically called the "fathers' rights movement" here) is really shooting itself in the foot by being so hostile towards feminism as a whole. It's from a book called Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel.


I mean, I think he raises a lot of very good points.

I disagree especially with this part:

What are the forces that have prevented men from becoming the fathers that they say they want to be? They are a combination of an unyielding workplace and an ideology of masculinity that promotes robotic stoicism over nurturing, competition over patience, aggression over justice. That is, it’s institutional inflexibility, giving guys the message that the “unencumbered worker” is really the best sort of worker (here they would find common cause with women who are also stymied by this). The set of attitudes and traits that is most closely associated with masculinity—robotic stoicism, competition, aggression—are those that contradict most with the qualities needed to be a good parent: patience, nurturing, emotional resilience. In that sense, men who seek to be really involved fathers have to choose between fatherhood and masculinity—at least in the traditional sense of masculinity. It’s a false choice, of course, and the groups that have launched the most persuasive critique of traditional notions of masculinity have been black men, gay men, and feminist women.

I was brought up in a traditionally masculine culture and the masculine values were not those rather: Kindness, wisdom, strength, justice, teamwork and personal discipline. fatherhood was always the epitome of successful masculinity and every wee boy wanted to be his dad. Descriptions of masculine behaviour as aggressive, impatient and stone hearted and uber competitive have never matched the reality of male society as I've experienced it. Get a bunch of lads together and there will very quickly be bonds and friendships formed and where friendships are formed you get emotional support networks, people helping (ie nurturing each other) and all the rest of the traits that fellow claims don't exist in 'traditional masculinity'.

he mentions that 'the most persuasive critique of traditional notions of masculinity have been black men, gay men, and feminist women.' I don't think this is a coincidence. All those groups are either A) outside of traditional masculinity having historically been either rejected by it (gay men) or set themselves against it as a strawman (feminists and to an extent certain modern black academics who blame white men for all the persisting problems in society). Their views on masculinity are from the outside looking in and are more a projection than an accurate analysis in my opinion.

He has good points that the MRA movement is wasting its time attacking radical feminists when they should be lobbying alongside moderates for legal changes though- I'll give him that.

Edit: in all honesty its a little insulting when i think about it, like those victorian gents who categorised traditional femininity as vapid and hysterical. I suppose the response would be that its not men but 'traditional masculinity' he's referring to, but in practice that is our fathers, uncles, grandfathers and great uncles. I'm reasonably confident that i won't be the only one who struggles to think of a male relative who fits his model. I know far more fathers who openly love their children than are cold stoics 'caught between masculinity and fatherhood'. Obviously some men are shit but that's true of any group. What he and others describe as traditional masculinity is a weird caricature of edwardian men like something from Mary Poppins. Like the father in said film its not something i'm convinced ever actually existed to any great extent.

 

[Cosmos]

I disagree especially with this part:

I was brought up in a traditionally masculine culture and the masculine values were not those rather: Kindness, wisdom, strength, justice, teamwork and personal discipline. fatherhood was always the epitome of successful masculinity and every wee boy wanted to be his dad. Descriptions of masculine behaviour as aggressive, impatient and stone hearted and uber competitive have never matched the reality of male society as I've experienced it. Get a bunch of lads together and there will very quickly be bonds and friendships formed and where friendships are formed you get emotional support networks, people helping (ie nurturing each other) and all the rest of the traits that fellow claims don't exist in 'traditional masculinity'.

he mentions that 'the most persuasive critique of traditional notions of masculinity have been black men, gay men, and feminist women.' I don't think this is a coincidence. All those groups are either A) outside of traditional masculinity having historically been either rejected by it (gay men) or set themselves against it as a strawman (feminists and to an extent certain modern black academics who blame white men for all the persisting problems in society). Their views on masculinity are from the outside looking in and are more a projection than an accurate analysis in my opinion.

He has good points that the MRA movement is wasting its time attacking radical feminists when they should be lobbying alongside moderates for legal changes though- I'll give him that.

I agree that he generalizes a bit too much, but I think some of his criticisms of masculinity are valid. Masculinity isn't a monolithic concept that's the same all across the board; some traits remain the same, yeah, but the concept of masculinity in Sweden is going to different than the concept of masculinity in Libya. And in some areas, excessive masculinity can be seen as a force that prevents men from being good fathers. For example, let's say that you live in an area that rigorously enforces the "men don't cry" mentality and sees emotional openness as a weakness, believing that men should act as a "rock" instead. If you were concerned with maintaining your masculinity, that would probably make it hard for you to be a father who is openly affectionate to his children.

Again, I think the "MASCULINITY IS BAD!!!' mentality is really stupid, because there's really no single definition of masculinity. And besides that, all concepts of masculinity have good and bad sides to them. I just think that ignoring the bad sides isn't a good idea, because it leads to nothing changing. I mean, it's still not socially acceptable for men to cry (unless it's because of the death of a loved one or because you just got kicked in the balls) or be openly emotional... even though men have the exact same capacity for emotions that women do.

Actually, you know what? I wish we'd stop obsessing over masculinity and femininity already. Like, for example, redpillers and MRAs are always whining about the "feminization" of America/Europe, like it's somehow a bad thing to be feminine. Or they whine about how men who are sensitive have been "feminized" or "emasculated." Men and women should be allowed to be however they want to be without worrying about rigid gender stereotypes.

 

[Vitriol]

And in some areas, excessive masculinity can be seen as a force that prevents men from being good fathers. For example, let's say that you live in an area that rigorously enforces the "men don't cry" mentality and sees emotional openness as a weakness, believing that men should act as a "rock" instead. If you were concerned with maintaining your masculinity, that would probably make it hard for you to be a father who is openly affectionate to his children

Excessive anything is of course bad but he is criticizing traditional masculinity not excesive masculinity. i don't believe the traditional concept of masculinity in the west is harmful to fathers wanting to be properly engaged and i dont think his description of it is accurate.


I suppose my broader point is that academics like the fellow above focus nearly exclusively on a concept of masculinity which is oversimple, inaccurate and overwhelmingly negative. No serious academic would release a book called 'hysterical black women' and proceed to make broad claims to toxic feminity. The inaccuracies in his analysis in my opinion rob his solutions of weight and effectiveness. He is attempting to fix a machine when he doesn't understand how it works or what is broken.

Edit: i think part of the reason you find his criticisms convincing is you too are outside looking in, for example men in even stoic cultures do cry and show emotional vulnerability but they typically do so in the company of their peers rather than the public. Therefore we get analysis like his claiming that men do not express their emotions when this is simply not the case- they just use a different forum. This is where the MRM could have been great in forming a masculine counterpart to early introspective feminist writing, instead we got losers whining about not getting laid

I don't think one can improve things without having the full picture and the focuss of all too many academics on flawed analysis like this provides such a narrow distorted view of how men work i don't think they're at all useful.

Im not saying they couldn't be useful and proper analysis would i think be beneficial but i think the vast majority of stuff on masculinity at the moment is dross that would not be considered of acceptable quality if it were about women. Thats from both the MRAs and Academics.

 

[Cave]

Labels are harmful because, over time, groups devolve and result in chaos. A split in the group, loud loons talking over the quieter rational side, self-interest replacing principle, etc.

All of these create negative connotations for a group. The MRAs and the Feminists are no different.

The wrong side is often the loudest and will get the most attention. This reflects on the entire group and ruins their reputation.

All this talk of gender rights and such eliminates any discussion of classism. This is just as important as all other forms of discrimination, but to bring it up would be rather jarring because we view all of these issues as gender-based. We need to view gender issues as human issues. Only then can both men and women come together and truly attempt to tackle these problems.

 

[Cosmos]

Excessive anything is of course bad but he is criticizing traditional masculinity not excesive masculinity. i don't believe the traditional concept of masculinity in the west is harmful to fathers wanting to be properly engaged and i dont think his description of it is accurate.


I suppose my broader point is that academics like the fellow above focus nearly exclusively on a concept of masculinity which is oversimple, inaccurate and overwhelmingly negative. No serious academic would release a book called 'hysterical black women' and proceed to make broad claims to toxic feminity. The inaccuracies in his analysis in my opinion rob his solutions of weight and effectiveness. He is attempting to fix a machine when he doesn't understand how it works or what is broken.

Edit: i think part of the reason you find his criticisms convincing is you too are outside looking in, for example men in even stoic cultures do cry and show emotional vulnerability but they typically do so in the company of their peers rather than the public. Therefore we get analysis like his claiming that men do not express their emotions when this is simply not the case- they just use a different forum. This is where the MRM could have been great in forming a masculine counterpart to early introspective feminist writing, instead we got losers whining about not getting laid

I don't think one can improve things without having the full picture and the focuss of all too many academics on flawed analysis like this provides such a narrow distorted view of how men work i don't think they're at all useful.

Im not saying they couldn't be useful and proper analysis would i think be beneficial but i think the vast majority of stuff on masculinity at the moment is dross that would not be considered of acceptable quality if it were about women. Thats from both the MRAs and Academics.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I think that harmful ideas pertaining to masculinity are partly responsible for the MRA and redpill movements. I mean, you don't have to look very hard to see those whiny misogynists taking concepts about masculinity to the extreme. And you're right in that I'm an outsider, but that's because I'm a woman. I do think that gives me a little insight into how certain concepts about masculinity are harmful, especially when they affect my gender.

 

[Vitriol]

I think that harmful ideas pertaining to masculinity are partly responsible for the MRA and redpill movements. I mean, you don't have to look very hard to see those whiny misogynists taking concepts about masculinity to the extreme.

I don't disagree that extremist concepts of masculinity are bad, but i don't think its fair to take the existence of extremists as evidence of general problems with masculinity, especially when such extremists are a tiny minority- it is the same as claiming radical feminists are evidence of harmful ideas about feminity which should be addressed, which is blatantly nonsense.

And you're right in that I'm an outsider, but that's because I'm a woman. I do think that gives me a little insight into how certain concepts about masculinity are harmful, especially when they affect my gender.

This is interesting, because here i think you are doing the same thing as you criticized here:

Like, for example, redpillers and MRAs are always whining about the "feminization" of America/Europe, like it's somehow a bad thing to be feminine.

You identified that mra definitions of feminine qualities are inherently flawed because they blame their problems on women and this colours their analysis. i think you are correct there, however you then went on to do almost the exact same thing yourself. I mean if we change the genders in either of the above quotes we get ;

Like, for example, redpillers and MRAs are always whining about the "feminization" of America/Europe, like it's somehow a bad thing to be feminine.

I'm a man. I do think that gives me a little insight into how certain concepts about feminity are harmful, especially when they affect my gender.

If, when pressed on what concepts he believes are harmful, the hypothetical abve responder responded with a caricature of women he would rightly be called a sexist and that his concept of feminity is oversimple and riddled with projection and confirmation bias (we have numerous threads where exactly that happens).

I believe much of modern feminst analysis of masculinity, including the piece you initially quoted does the same thing albeit in the sophistic language of a field of academia.

I think it is fair to say from the above quotes that the concept that feminity is inherently harmful is anathema to you (and i would agree). My point is that the claim that traditional masculinity is inherently harmful is just as insulting to a great many men for exactly the same reasons.

I'm happy to agree to disagree. It has been interesting chatting with you.

I'm also happy to agree to agree on a fair few things aswell, i agree extremist masculinity can of course be a problem and the MRA movement is full of misogynists!

 

[KingGeedorah]

Red Pillers might say, "Look! Look how the feminists are destroying men!", and then point to real cases in which Feminist supported laws screwed over some men. You claim this somehow invalidates their concerns and makes them dumb losers? What about the blacks who complained about Jim Crow but werent lynched themselves?

Dude you are pants on head loopy. The amount of educated blacks who could rationally and eloquently fight against Jim Crow laws were a minuscule minority. Yet some how these seconds class citizens fought against it. And people HATED them for it to the point of killing them.

Then you have MRA's who have the vast depository of information called the internet to call upon and you still end of with arguments such as

Spoiler: Inane MGTOW quote

"The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles."

I don't know of any MRA who has had physical violence used against him by the majority that is oppressing him. No white neckbeards hanging from trees.

It doesn't automatically make MRA's dumb losers, but to try and compare the two things is borderline retarded.

 

[Datiko]

I think some of the ideas of true equality between the genders that MRA lead off with have merit. The actual "activists" tend to be pretty intolerable though. If I were to actually use the term MRA in a conversation it would be with the same intent that I would use SJW. I don't think identifying as a MRA is a positive thing.

This sounds more like a white man's rights activist issue.

There are plenty of places in the world where affirmative action is used to favor an ethnic majority over a minority group. Look up the word "Bumiputera" if you want to learn more. That said, I don't agree with any affirmative action laws and I advocate against them against them when I am asked about the issue. I do so as a white person who is part of a small ethnic minority no longer holding a passport to a country where I belong to the ethnic majority.